Should NCAA women’s scholarship allotments per sport be changed?

[Unregistered]

Why does Women’s rowing get 20 scholarships?
Why does Equestrian get 15?
Women’s Ice hockey gets 18?
Rugby has 12?

Why does women’s soccer only get 14?
On the same note, why does softball only get 12?

Who decided that rowing got 20?
Who decided that women’s basketball, volleyball, tennis and gymnastics all get to be headcount sports? Basketball had only 5 on the court at a time, yet has 15 full headcount scholarships. Imagine if soccer had 11x3 = 33 full headcount scholarships!

Women’s soccer is loads more popular than rowing, equestrian or ice hockey and yet the other 3 all have more scholarships. Rowing and equestrian are particularly puzzling because they are sports of the ultra wealthy with lower numbers of participants and participants that don’t need sports scholarships. Makes zero sense that they get 20 and 15 scholarships, respectively!

Is there a review process to change those max scholarships allowed numbers based on rational and fair thinking and to adjust for the times? All the whining on TS would be best spent channeled into increasing the numbers of max scholarships allowed for soccer - particularly on the women’s side where there are more to work with due to no football. Also, how can women’s soccer become a headcount sport? If nothing else, maybe take rowing down to 15 and equestrian down to 10 and bam, soccer could have 24. Or give soccer 5 of those and softball 5.

In any case, shouldn’t the NCAA scholarships per different sports be updated or changed?

[Unregistered]

Why does Women’s rowing get 20 scholarships?
Why does Equestrian get 15?
Women’s Ice hockey gets 18?
Rugby has 12?

Why does women’s soccer only get 14?
On the same note, why does softball only get 12?

Who decided that rowing got 20?
Who decided that women’s basketball, volleyball, tennis and gymnastics all get to be headcount sports? Basketball had only 5 on the court at a time, yet has 15 full headcount scholarships. Imagine if soccer had 11x3 = 33 full headcount scholarships!

Women’s soccer is loads more popular than rowing, equestrian or ice hockey and yet the other 3 all have more scholarships. Rowing and equestrian are particularly puzzling because they are sports of the ultra wealthy with lower numbers of participants and participants that don’t need sports scholarships. Makes zero sense that they get 20 and 15 scholarships, respectively!

Is there a review process to change those max scholarships allowed numbers based on rational and fair thinking and to adjust for the times? All the whining on TS would be best spent channeled into increasing the numbers of max scholarships allowed for soccer - particularly on the women’s side where there are more to work with due to no football. Also, how can women’s soccer become a headcount sport? If nothing else, maybe take rowing down to 15 and equestrian down to 10 and bam, soccer could have 24. Or give soccer 5 of those and softball 5.

In any case, shouldn’t the NCAA scholarships per different sports be updated or changed?

This is the fight we should be fighting! Not whether GDA or ECNL is better. If US Soccer wants to grow the game and get more superstars, then focus attention on getting the NCAA to Increase the number of soccer scholarships (on the men’s side too).

[Unregistered]

When they cut football scholarships, there will be less women’s scholarships.
Then they will cut rowing and equestrian.

[Unregistered]

All athletic scholarships should be need based.

[Unregistered]

When they cut football scholarships, there will be less women’s scholarships.
Then they will cut rowing and equestrian.

Why would they cut football scholarships?

[Unregistered]

Why would they cut football scholarships?

Title IX

[Unregistered]

This is the fight we should be fighting! Not whether GDA or ECNL is better. If US Soccer wants to grow the game and get more superstars, then focus attention on getting the NCAA to Increase the number of soccer scholarships (on the men’s side too).

How do you plan on fighting this?

[Unregistered]

Why does Women’s rowing get 20 scholarships?
Why does Equestrian get 15?
Women’s Ice hockey gets 18?
Rugby has 12?

Why does women’s soccer only get 14?
On the same note, why does softball only get 12?

Who decided that rowing got 20?
Who decided that women’s basketball, volleyball, tennis and gymnastics all get to be headcount sports? Basketball had only 5 on the court at a time, yet has 15 full headcount scholarships. Imagine if soccer had 11x3 = 33 full headcount scholarships!

Women’s soccer is loads more popular than rowing, equestrian or ice hockey and yet the other 3 all have more scholarships. Rowing and equestrian are particularly puzzling because they are sports of the ultra wealthy with lower numbers of participants and participants that don’t need sports scholarships. Makes zero sense that they get 20 and 15 scholarships, respectively!

Is there a review process to change those max scholarships allowed numbers based on rational and fair thinking and to adjust for the times? All the whining on TS would be best spent channeled into increasing the numbers of max scholarships allowed for soccer - particularly on the women’s side where there are more to work with due to no football. Also, how can women’s soccer become a headcount sport? If nothing else, maybe take rowing down to 15 and equestrian down to 10 and bam, soccer could have 24. Or give soccer 5 of those and softball 5.

In any case, shouldn’t the NCAA scholarships per different sports be updated or changed?

Why do you think women’s soccer is more popular than rowing or equestrian. Aside from the women’s national team, it’s only watched by very few, as in parents of players.

[Unregistered]

Why does Women’s rowing get 20 scholarships?
Why does Equestrian get 15?
Women’s Ice hockey gets 18?
Rugby has 12?

Why does women’s soccer only get 14?
On the same note, why does softball only get 12?

Who decided that rowing got 20?
Who decided that women’s basketball, volleyball, tennis and gymnastics all get to be headcount sports? Basketball had only 5 on the court at a time, yet has 15 full headcount scholarships. Imagine if soccer had 11x3 = 33 full headcount scholarships!

Women’s soccer is loads more popular than rowing, equestrian or ice hockey and yet the other 3 all have more scholarships. Rowing and equestrian are particularly puzzling because they are sports of the ultra wealthy with lower numbers of participants and participants that don’t need sports scholarships. Makes zero sense that they get 20 and 15 scholarships, respectively!

Is there a review process to change those max scholarships allowed numbers based on rational and fair thinking and to adjust for the times? All the whining on TS would be best spent channeled into increasing the numbers of max scholarships allowed for soccer - particularly on the women’s side where there are more to work with due to no football. Also, how can women’s soccer become a headcount sport? If nothing else, maybe take rowing down to 15 and equestrian down to 10 and bam, soccer could have 24. Or give soccer 5 of those and softball 5.

In any case, shouldn’t the NCAA scholarships per different sports be updated or changed?

Educate yourself on Title IX and you won’t be asking these questions. It’s called reading...
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/...sked-questions

[Unregistered]

Educate yourself on Title IX and you won’t be asking these questions. It’s called reading...
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/...sked-questions

Not the OP, but could you point to where in your link that discusses why some women's sports seemingly have more scholarships available to them than others; when the others seemingly have higher team members?

[Unregistered]

Why does Women’s rowing get 20 scholarships?
Why does Equestrian get 15?
Women’s Ice hockey gets 18?
Rugby has 12?

Why does women’s soccer only get 14?
On the same note, why does softball only get 12?

Who decided that rowing got 20?
Who decided that women’s basketball, volleyball, tennis and gymnastics all get to be headcount sports? Basketball had only 5 on the court at a time, yet has 15 full headcount scholarships. Imagine if soccer had 11x3 = 33 full headcount scholarships!

Women’s soccer is loads more popular than rowing, equestrian or ice hockey and yet the other 3 all have more scholarships. Rowing and equestrian are particularly puzzling because they are sports of the ultra wealthy with lower numbers of participants and participants that don’t need sports scholarships. Makes zero sense that they get 20 and 15 scholarships, respectively!

Is there a review process to change those max scholarships allowed numbers based on rational and fair thinking and to adjust for the times? All the whining on TS would be best spent channeled into increasing the numbers of max scholarships allowed for soccer - particularly on the women’s side where there are more to work with due to no football. Also, how can women’s soccer become a headcount sport? If nothing else, maybe take rowing down to 15 and equestrian down to 10 and bam, soccer could have 24. Or give soccer 5 of those and softball 5.

In any case, shouldn’t the NCAA scholarships per different sports be updated or changed?

Youth soccer is also now reserved for the "ultra wealthy". Seventy percent cannot even afford lower level club soccer, never mind the high end leagues. You can certainly get into rowing for 10K a year.

[Unregistered]

Youth soccer is also now reserved for the "ultra wealthy". Seventy percent cannot even afford lower level club soccer, never mind the high end leagues. You can certainly get into rowing for 10K a year.

And equestrian?

My daughter rides and works at a horse barn in the summers. Her HS has an equestrian club. Great, she wanted to join.

Need to provide your own horse.

Everyone has one of them lying around, no?

[Unregistered]

Title IX

Not only that but running football costs a fortune. They can have up to 85 scholarships, huge travel and staff budgets, equipment....Many schools won't see more than a nickel from TV broadcasting etc. Not everyone can be Alabama.

[Unregistered]

Not only that but running football costs a fortune. They can have up to 85 scholarships, huge travel and staff budgets, equipment....Many schools won't see more than a nickel from TV broadcasting etc. Not everyone can be Alabama.

Again, EVERY athletic scholarship should be need based.

If 38 of 85 football players come from upper-middle class homes they get virtually no money.

If 70% of the women’s soccer team come from families with household incomes over $200,000 then they get nothing.

Create a men’s pool of money and the commensurate women’s pool. Allocate it based on need.

Problem solved.

[Unregistered]

And equestrian?

My daughter rides and works at a horse barn in the summers. Her HS has an equestrian club. Great, she wanted to join.

Need to provide your own horse.

Everyone has one of them lying around, no?

Many college sports, especially the women's side, have sports that few can afford to participate or land a scholarship in. Rowing, tennis, hockey, even polo (water and equestrian). It's almost affirmative action for white applicants who might not get into elite schools without a tip for athletics. Now, if you cut the big three, that can lower the # of scholarships for athletes of color. But it can also cut $ going to student's whose families can better afford college to begin with

https://www.theatlantic.com/educatio...udents/573688/

"When it comes to college athletics, football and basketball command the most public attention, but in the background is a phalanx of lower-profile sports favored by white kids, which often cost a small fortune for a student participating at a top level. Ivy League sports like sailing, golf, water polo, fencing, and lacrosse aren’t typically staples of urban high schools with big nonwhite populations; they have entrenched reputations as suburban, country-club sports. According to the NCAA, of the 232 Division I sailors last year, none were black. Eighty-five percent of college lacrosse players were white, as well as 90 percent of ice-hockey players.

And the cost of playing these sports can be sky high. “There are high economic barriers to entering in this highly specialized sports system,” Hextrum says. “White people are concentrated in areas that are resource rich and have greater access to those economic resources.” Getting good enough at a sport to have a shot at playing collegiately often necessitates coaching, summer camps, traveling for tournaments, and a mountain of equipment. One in five families of an elite high-school athlete spend $1,000 a month on sports—the average family of a lacrosse player spends nearly $8,000 a year. Kids from low-income families participate in youth sports at almost half the rate of affluent families, according to a report from the Aspen Institute. It’s no surprise, then, that per The Harvard Crimson’s annual freshman survey, 46.3 percent of recruited athletes in the class of 2022 hail from families with household incomes of $250,000 or higher, compared with one-third of the class as a whole."